Paladin and his mount

Hypersmurf said:
"Fabulous secret powers were revealed to me the day I held aloft my magic sword and said... By the Power of Greyskull!"

That's one I hadn't considered - the paladin is accompanied everywhere by a cowardly miniature pony, but when he says the magic words, it turns into a powerful warhorse! ;)
Well, I like to think that my image isn't quite so cartoony as He-Man. At least, that's what I like to tell myself. :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Your DM is partially at fault, but I think a good deal of the blame lies with the 3.5 revisionists, who also saw fit to turn the druid into a walking menagerie or petting zoo on top of that pokemount thing. The balance may be better, but the flavour is a lot more yuck.
 

LordBOB said:
All-in-all im not to mad about having to keep my horse with me. The part that PI**ES me off is that he told me ( after i sumoned my horse) that if it dies than im going to be in SERIOUS trouble.

I vote you call his bluff, leave your horse outside a dungeon and see what he does. I mean what's he going to do to you? And if he does somehow mess you up, next time you attack roll all the dice you have for damage and say something along the lines of "well since you don't seem to have to follow the rules, I don't see why I should, so my sword now does this much damage"
 

Aaron L said:
I personally HATE paladins summoning and dismissing thier mounts, and do not allow it. Mounts in my game are permanent once called. But, if thier mount dies, I let them call a new one after a week. Also, I make avaiable a special 2nd level paladin spell that lets them teleport thier mount to them within 100 miles per level, and a 4th level spell that lets them do it at unlimited distances.


But your DM just sounds like a total ass on a power trip. And like he is 8 years old.

But do you guys who don't allow mount summoning mention this at the first session when players are creating their characters? If so, I wouldn't have any problems with that. But doing this mid-stream and acting like an ass when asked about it, I would have a prob with it.
 

rounser said:
Your DM is partially at fault, but I think a good deal of the blame lies with the 3.5 revisionists, who also saw fit to turn the druid into a walking menagerie or petting zoo on top of that pokemount thing. The balance may be better, but the flavour is a lot more yuck.

THe DM is all at fault. It doesn't matter if the rule change was good or bad from edition to edition. Announcing the house rule after the fact and then tagetting the mount is just a sign of a bad DM.
 

Darth K'Trava said:
But do you guys who don't allow mount summoning mention this at the first session when players are creating their characters? If so, I wouldn't have any problems with that. But doing this mid-stream and acting like an ass when asked about it, I would have a prob with it.

Nothing midstream about it. Characters are created at level 1. You don't have to discuss a level 5 ability until you are level 5.

Most games end long before characters gain four levels.
 

I play lots of Paladins.

I have seen so many different GMs try to mess with my paladins that I have become somewhat jaded about GMs.

You have it good. There is nothing to be worried about. This is typical for GMs.

Part of being a Paladin is having to submit to GM stuff.

Now to be serious: If someone wants to use a 3.0 Mount rule instead of a 3.5 mount rule, that's not a big deal. There are still a lot of people out there using 3.0 books.
 

In battle, my paladin holds his holy symbol aloft and cries out in a thunderous voice, "In the name of Nathan Silverhome I call thee! Dius! Come to my side! Evil stands before us, and our battle begins anew!" A beam of light fires from the Sunmask of Pelor, opening up a shining argent portal to Mount Celestia, and my pally's mount comes thundering through, ready to do battle at his companion's side once again.

I had a similar idea, though without the "By the Power of Greyskull" part, but for Ravenloft. In Raveloft, when the Paladin summons his mount, a deep mist would suddenly blow in around the Paladin, and out of this deep mist would appear the mount as if it'd always been there.

Well, I like to think that my image isn't quite so cartoony as He-Man. At least, that's what I like to tell myself.

Have you ever thought of taking a Dire Tiger mount? If so, I suggest naming it Battle-Cat. ;)

Nothing midstream about it. Characters are created at level 1. You don't have to discuss a level 5 ability until you are level 5.

Most games end long before characters gain four levels.

It is midstream, because a player who creates a character at Level 1 expecting his character to develop a certain way is going to be pissed if the DM doesn't tell him until Level 5 that his character, in fact, will be developing in a completely DIFFERENT way then he thought it would. Really, if you're a DM, and you're going to make a House Rule altering one or more abilities of a player class, how much trouble would it be to, oh, I don't know, TELL THE PLAYER BEFORE HE MAKES THE CHARACTER? God forbid that the player be fully informed when making his choice.

Even if the campaign doesn't make it to 3rd-Level, is telling the player beforehand REALLY such an onerous thing to expect of the DM? Whereas it's a big deal for the player, because he might not want to play that class from Level 1 if he doesn't like the DM's changes. Yeah, he could always make a new Level 5 character to replace his old one which has suddenly lost its appeal, but you, as the DM, have just taken a big old dump on the player. You've left him with only two options. A) Continue with a character that's been changed in such a way that he might not like, which'll reduce the enjoyment of the game for him, or B) Throw away every bit of development he's invested into that character up til that point in favor of a brand new character which he's going to have to start working on from scratch (And I don't mean level and equipment wise. Playing a 10th-level character isn't the same as playing a character from 1st-level to 10th-level). He may not mind the changes, if you're lucky, but once again, IS it so much trouble to let the player know BEFOREHAND of the changes? So may not be bothered, but some may be pissed off greatly.

Point is, if you've got any house rules which would affect the players choice of which character to play, then it's your responsibility to tell the players the house rules BEFORE the campaign starts. You shouldn't wait until they've worked hard to advance their character to a certain level in order to get a certain power, only to tell them at that point that the power they've been looking forward to won't work anything remotely like how they were expecting.
 

Nothing midstream about it. Characters are created at level 1. You don't have to discuss a level 5 ability until you are level 5.

Wrong. All house rules are to be made clear to the players during character creation, not later, during the campaign. If that happens, I walk out. I will refuse to play a game where the DM is hiding some of the rules that I should know about.
 

Remove ads

Top